reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (12/29/87)
Gerry Gleason comments: > As far as people not wanting to use computers; People did not *want* to > use telephones very much at one time either, but that did not stop them > from becoming so commonplace. This is pure speculation on my part, but lets take a crack at it anyway. The reason that the telephone may not have caught on immediately was obviously availability and affordability. These same factors will influence the impact of any technology upon society. Look at the PC! It has opened up to a new segment of society the power of computation that was previously reserved for only those organizations that could afford a multi-user system. The same can be said for the minicomputer in terms of opening up to smaller organizations, who could not afford a mainframe, the power of computing. Another major factor to acceptance of new technology is the perceived usefulness to the individual. The telephone may not have been accepted initially in the late 1800's for the reason that everyone that someone knew generally lived in a relatively small geographic area. With the advent of the industrial revolution, many people moved to the cities, thus relatives were more spread out. However, only with the introduction of the automobile in quantity did the phone become more of a useful tool to the general public. With the ability to travel greater distances in shorter amounts of time people generally traveled more. Also, suburbs were forming as an alternative to the old crowded city neighborhoods. Greater distances separated people and thus the phone became more useful. The phone is a relatively simple device to use anyway. All it requires is for me to know a number that is associated with someone else that I wish to communicate with. Then I and the other person are in control of the conversation. With a computer system we must make it that simple and natural to use for the common individual. > It is only recently that any societies had literacy rates over 10%, now > literacy is a necessary skill in many societies. This trend will continue. > Hypertext will be important because it will reduce the monopoly of the > educated elite on information, just as the development of the printing > press did. Maybe it won't be called hypertext, but that kind of access > to information will be available and important to everyone in the future. This all depends upon how available and affordable such a technology will become. And it is not something that will happen overnight! We must get fiber optics into the local telephone loop right up to each and every house (at an affordable price). What will be connected to that glass? What types of systems will be supported? The logistics are tremendous. It will call for a great deal of cooperation on the part of those supplying the services in order to appear as a single coherent system to the end user. Will everyone be so willing to cooperate? Notice the growing trend of some companies to pull back from the "Open Environment". It is not in the best interest of company XYZ to be open, they want you to buy and get locked into their proprietary OS, networking solutions, hardware, etc.... This type of thinking will not help solve the problems involved with bring all the services of the "Information Age" to the individual consumer. It is not just a matter of technology anymore. Politics will rear it's ugly head anywhere there is money to be made. Just look at the situation in some of the boroughs of New York City over Cable TV Franchises. Cable TV is a technology that has been around for quite some time. Yet there are people in the largest city in the world without it! Why? Politics!!! Control over the industry by government, who will determine who makes money from the technology!!! And believe me politics, corruption, and greed will all be what drives making this available to the people, not the technological feasibility of such an endeavor! George W. Leach
news@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (News Subsystem ) (01/05/88)
While reading AT&T documention, the following points of interest came to my attention: (taken from text about Alexander G. Bell) "Needless to say, after the invention of the telephone, Alexander Bell and associates were highly optimistic about their business venture. But they soon discovered that the public did not share their enthusiasm for their new invention. Reactions varied: scientist were convinced that the telephone was a physical impossibility; cynics believed that Bell was a ventriloquist, the telephone was a publicity stunt; some people even thought that the telephone was black magic, and a local newspaper is quoted, "It is hard to resist the notion that the powers of darkness and evil are in league with it". Bell (and associates) realized that the people would never understand the telephone. He took his invention on the road for several years. He provided a series of public demonstration in verious cities. Despite all of Bell's work at showing the invention to the public, people remained unconvinced. For one thing, people felt uncomfortable talking into the mouthpiece. In addition, the idea of doing business (the first users of telephones) verbally was very new, and not many trusted it (no one to shake hands with). The public consensus was that Bell's invention was just a novelty. Ted G. Kekatos